I sat on the RDX but did not drive it. The seats are nice. Dash board looks too busy. That middle control knob is weird. A report online also expressed same opinion.

Exterior the cx5 still looks better.

The infotainment system in all Honda vehicles are a pain. Confusing and complicated. I just don't get why things need to be so complicated. I am actually no fan of the Mazda connect system either and prefer the simple archaic system in my 2014 GT.

But I don't run the tank bone dry. I usually fill up when my tank is at 1/8-1/4. At a 12 gallon fill and 20-22 MPG that's only a usable range of about 220-240 miles. I personally think it'll be hard to keep MPG decent in this car because there's so much fun torque at the drivers disposal. By contrast the Audi Q5 has a 18.5 gallon tank.

I'll probably take a closer look at a Q5 and RDX before I decide.

Yeah I plan to check out a couple used 2018 Q5 under $40k, but it won’t have all the features of the CX-5, so the quality and drive will really need to impress me.

I wanted to like the RDX, but they botched the redesign in my view. Especially the busy interior. Mazda is by far the only Japanese brand with a sense of modern style.

Funny... that's bigger than the stock 23 gallon tank in my GX 460. Although you can buy some aftermarket supplemental extended long range tanks but you lose the underside full spare. These are typically get you up to 56 gallon capacity.

Fortunately, I will not be ready to purchase a new CX5 turbo for ~ 2years. Hopefully the interior offering will include a light gray or Parchment. In addition; One hope that after 4+ frustrating years, they will get the infotainment issues sorted out. Ed

I don't see 2.5T making it as a 27k USD sport trim. Too expensive due to fuel economy measures and no profit for Mazda. GT might get it as optional. Also this puts the 2.5T in luxury class so can't see more than 30k units annually. This is really extreme end of the estimate.
Unless someone allowed OP to drive the brand new signature 100 miles without buying it his mpg #s have no significance. I would love to know that dealers name.
In 27000 miles my CX-5 filled 12 gallons twice. Mostly its 11.XX gallons after fuel warning. So NA range for FWD is 300 not even 330. AWD might be 325. So the turbo would be 275 on higher side.

This morning I test drove a '19 Acura RDX and here are my impressions compared to the CX-5 Signature:

- I could live with the RDX styling but it's a bit cluttered especially with that oddball chrome cladding on the lower door panels.
- I was really underwhelmed with the performance. It seemed to have significant turbo lag/"dead pedal affect". The Mazda 2.5T had seamless acceleration based on my test drive. The Acura might have better 0-60 performance on paper but you'd never perceive it based on a test drive.
- The RDX was not as quiet as I thought it would be and the engine sounds terrible.
- The RDX seems to have more technology then the Mazda but I'm not sure how much of it is really useful. It seems very cluttered with all the various modes, options, buttons.
- Mazda's Signature level interior quality is just as good if not better then RDX.

There's no way I'd pay a $10k premium for the RDX. It's off my short list.

This morning I test drove a '19 Acura RDX and here are my impressions compared to the CX-5 Signature:

- I could live with the RDX styling but it's a bit cluttered especially with that oddball chrome cladding on the lower door panels.
- I was really underwhelmed with the performance. It seemed to have significant turbo lag/"dead pedal affect". The Mazda 2.5T had seamless acceleration based on my test drive. The Acura might have better 0-60 performance on paper but you'd never perceive it based on a test drive.
- The RDX was not as quiet as I thought it would be and the engine sounds terrible.
- The RDX seems to have more technology then the Mazda but I'm not sure how much of it is really useful. It seems very cluttered with all the various modes, options, buttons.
- Mazda's Signature level interior quality is just as good if not better then RDX.

There's no way I'd pay a $10k premium for the RDX. It's off my short list.

I'd like to test drive an Audi Q5 next.

Interesting to say the least. Mazda with a more refined feel than an Acura!

Sigs are visible only in your first post on a page. To change your thread display preferences, click here and enable 'Always Show Signature'.

I'm curious if there's less turbo lag because the Mazda has a higher displacement engine to begin with? (2.5 vs 2.0)

I wonder what the torque numbers for the RDX look like compared to the 2.5T. The Mazda's goal is lots of torque at low RPMs, not sure what the RDX is designed to do. The 2.0T in the Accord feels really nice.

Sigs are visible only in your first post on a page. To change your thread display preferences, click here and enable 'Always Show Signature'.

I wonder what the torque numbers for the RDX look like compared to the 2.5T. The Mazda's goal is lots of torque at low RPMs, not sure what the RDX is designed to do. The 2.0T in the Accord feels really nice.

I dunno, when I test drove the accord the turbo lag is significant and the transmission in manual mode is very jerky in downshift.

This morning I test drove a '19 Acura RDX and here are my impressions compared to the CX-5 Signature:

Long shot question, I know, but have you ever driven an Alfa Romeo Stelvio by chance? From what I have been reading 2018 models are going from about $10K-$12K below sticker (seems to vary by area). That puts some models in the CX-5 turbo price range.